Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, ReeRay said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm of the opinion that the controversial (read potentially damaging) clauses that Alamy have chosen to insert/amend cannot legally be retrospectively applied. I believe both parties are bound by the TC's applicable at the time of supplying our images. If this is so, we need only to consider future submissions (if any) that may fall foul of legal eagles.

 

Hope I'm right and that the promised response from Alamy will pour some light on this.

I'm not a lawyer, but I expect the following logic would apply.

 

If a contributor chooses to leave their previously uploaded images on sale at Alamy (thereby accepting the terms of the new contract) then the new rules will apply to those images, from 1st July onwards.

The new rules will not apply to licences that were granted on those images before 1st July (they will be covered by whatever rules were in place when the licence was granted).

 

Mark

Edited May 22, 2021 by M.Chapman

[ReeRay]

7 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I expect the following logic would apply.

 

If a contributor chooses to leave their previously uploaded images on sale at Alamy (thereby accepting the terms of the new contract) then the new rules will apply to those images, from 1st July onwards.

The new rules will not apply to licences that were granted on those images before 1st July (they will be covered by whatever rules were in place when the licence was granted).

 

Mark

That makes sense. Still an completely unsatisfactory state of affairs. Weighing up the possibility of cancelling and spending my time elsewhere.

[Alamy]

8 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Make a joke suggestion that Alamy has posted a red arrow on the forum and you get an almost immediate response and an offer of answers to more questions.... Seems more effective than 50 pages of ranting

 

Mark

This isn’t really a statement that represents the reality, Mark!

 

To be clear, MDM hinted that Alamy were going through and downvoting posts in this thread. That’s not true, and something that would not be very helpful to be discussed upon within this thread so I asked him to clarify. I also offered to answer any other questions he may have.

 

Emailing us questions is open to all contributors as we have said throughout our communications on this. You can email contributors@alamy.com for general support and if you want to email the MD of Alamy, Emily Shelley, directly, you can also do that at md@alamy.com.

 

It’s not practical for us to get into a live Q+A here because if we answer one question as it’s written, another will follow and with the best will in the world we won’t be able to keep on top of it through the week in this way.

 

We will continue to post “round up” clarifications here as needed but for specific questions you would like quicker answers on, email is the way to go.

 

Best regards,

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

 

[Radim]

26 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I expect the following logic would apply.

 

If a contributor chooses to leave their previously uploaded images on sale at Alamy (thereby accepting the terms of the new contract) then the new rules will apply to those images, from 1st July onwards.

The new rules will not apply to licences that were granted on those images before 1st July (they will be covered by whatever rules were in place when the licence was granted).

 

Mark

I am also not a lawyer, but I think that if we accept a new contract, we will be bound by it. Forget what it was. Now follow the new contract. Dot

[Foreign Export]

17 minutes ago, Radim said:

I am also not a lawyer, but I think that if we accept a new contract, we will be bound by it. Forget what it was. Now follow the new contract. Dot

correct -we will

[Avpics]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

It’s not practical for us to get into a live Q+A here because if we answer one question as it’s written.....

That's two replies now from Alamy and neither has addressed the number one concern of the contributors. Could we have some feedback on that single matter of the new contract appearing to make the contributor liable for any misuse of an image by the end user please. Just that.

[Martin P Wilson]

3 hours ago, sb photos said:

 

I agree with you. Alamy's growth appears to be driven by submissions by other agencies. Individual contributors are of benefit, but don't appear to feature high up in their growth plans. As agencies place large amounts of stock with each other there will be no individuality to attract clients with specific needs. Is it viable for contributors, I would suggest not longer term, and for some not now, it's likely to be downhill for many. 

 

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.

 

 

from "Siphonaptera"  by Augustus De Morgan

 

^{The problem is the food chain, every one (many only taking, (not adding value) takes their cut before the photographer gets the little thaqqt is left. I saw the same problem in the freelance IT contractor's market.  Agencies working through other agencies, ad infinitum. But same here.}

Edited May 22, 2021 by Martin P Wilson
typo

[BobD]

2 hours ago, Alamy said:

This isn’t really a statement that represents the reality, Mark!

 

To be clear, MDM hinted that Alamy were going through and downvoting posts in this thread. That’s not true, and something that would not be very helpful to be discussed upon within this thread so I asked him to clarify. I also offered to answer any other questions he may have.

 

Emailing us questions is open to all contributors as we have said throughout our communications on this. You can email contributors@alamy.com for general support and if you want to email the MD of Alamy, Emily Shelley, directly, you can also do that at md@alamy.com.

 

It’s not practical for us to get into a live Q+A here because if we answer one question as it’s written, another will follow and with the best will in the world we won’t be able to keep on top of it through the week in this way.

 

We will continue to post “round up” clarifications here as needed but for specific questions you would like quicker answers on, email is the way to go.

 

Best regards,

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

 

 

How about clearing up in Plain English the extent of our legal liabilities if we honestly tag our images correctly.

[Richard Tadman]

4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Perhaps someone on the forum knows a friendly lawyer who can advise?

 

In terms of the English Law of Contract, for an agreement to be binding there has to be an 'offer' by one party and an unqualified "acceptance" by the other party to establish a contract or indeed to amend it.
In this case Alamy is making a "counter offer" and contributors have the right to accept it or reject it.
From a legal point of view if you accept either specifically or by your behaviour i.e. acquiesce (do nothing) you will be deemed to have agreed to the revised terms.
Unless the contract terms specifically state otherwise, the new terms agreed will apply to the contract going forward and supersede any previous terms.

in a nutshell, you can't rely on the terms applicable originally if you subsequently 'agree' to amend them. The previous terms will be replaced by the new ones.
 

[Martyn]

5 minutes ago, Sally R said:

This could be an issue where the end user uses the image in a manner never intended by the contributor

 

 

As I have posted before, this clause is a total nonsense ! If I drink a bottle of vodka, get into my car and drive, lose control and crash into something or someone, then stood up in court and said that I held the car manufacturer responsible, it would be rightly laughed at in court ... the onus of the use has to be on the client using the image, not us as the image makers ...

[Martin P Wilson]

5 minutes ago, Sally R said:

Well I'm glad if 4.1.5 does not mean Alamy can override restrictions we place on images. As several posters in this thread were reporting recently being asked if restrictions could be removed along with that clause being separated off as a new clause in the contract, it was looking a bit ominous. So I feel better about that part.

 

As to 4.1.6, for me personally it is not likely an issue as nothing I've uploaded nor would plan to upload falls into one of those potentially offensive categories. But it does seem, if there is a grey area, that the liability could fall onto the contributor. This could be an issue where the end user uses the image in a manner never intended by the contributor, which I think is what Avpics is wanting to clarify above.

 

If 17 million out of 260 million images are exclusive that is just 6.5%. With many who are exclusive now likely to submit elsewhere, the percentage of exclusive images will be very small indeed. It seems that Alamy would need to keep reducing license fees in order to compete in a saturated market.

 

While my rate of sales is gradually improving, I will be getting less commission. I can then upload elsewhere to try and compensate, but it feels a bit like being a mouse on a wheel having to run faster but not actually gaining ground. So I will spend the next few weeks doing a cost/benefit analysis of various options and where I want to go with photography and from there will make a decision regarding whether to stay with Alamy.

 

But if you are based outside the UK (or even in it) can you afford the expense of arguing it in court. The big boys (they are mostly men although not in Alamy's case) use the threat of litigation knowing most cannot afford to defend it. There is a very asymetric access to the law as with many things. Look at the comments in the thread and elsewhere about copyright abuse.

[hotbrightsky]

9 hours ago, Panthera tigris said:

how much infringement fees will be, whats their cut of the infringement (it should be zero if the are funding it through the commission reduction)

 

Yes, assuming it ain't zero Alamy have comprehensively undermined their own argument.

[AndrewP]

26 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

The problem is the food chain, every one (many only taking, (not adding value) takes their cut before the photographer gets the little thaqqt is left. I saw the same problem in the freelance IT contractor's market.  Agencies working through other agencies, ad infinitum. But same here.

I have a lot of sympathy for dairy farmers supplying milk to the large supermarkets and the changes discussed here over the last 50+ pages highlight similar issues.

[hotbrightsky]

3 hours ago, Alamy said:

if you want to email the MD of Alamy, Emily Shelley, directly, you can also do that at md@alamy.com

 

I emailed Emily directly and got a reply from Ellie. So how does that work?

[Martin P Wilson]

Just now, hotbrightsky said:

 

I emailed Emily directly and got a reply from Ellie. So how does that work?

 

A PA PA

[Sultanpepa]

37 minutes ago, Sally R said:

That is a huge issue here in Australia. Farmers who have been in the dairy industry for several generations of their family have had to quit because of the duopoly of the two main supermarket chains putting dairy prices down so low. Some farmers have ended up dumping huge amounts of milk. I have actually thought of dairy farming and supermarkets as an analogy for microstock before.

 

I now buy from the milk supplier cutting out the supermarkets. Maybe there's a lesson there?

[Gordon Scammell]

15 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Legalised theft. Nothing else to say. 

 

Glad that I went non-exclusive years ago. Alamy speak with forked-tongue. 

 

I'm surprised that Alamy only has 17 million 'exclusive images' - all the rest are available, probably much more cheaply elsewhere. 

 

That is the fundamental reason that they are uncompetitive. And what do they do? Hit those who have been providing that exclusive material!

 

This is not sustainable, more cuts are inevitable. 

Why has this comment been given one of those pathetic red arrow things?  Own up you coward.  Nothing wrong with the comment.  It's absolutely spot on - so have a green to compensate!

[Martin P Wilson]

38 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

I now buy from the milk supplier cutting out the supermarkets. Maybe there's a lesson there?

 

Similarly, we try to use the small local supplier for most things. Green grocery, butcher unfortunately no local dairy supplier or artisan baker, so we make our own bread.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Martin P Wilson

[Foreign Export]

1 hour ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

I emailed Emily directly and got a reply from Ellie. So how does that work?

no MD reads their own emails

[Foreign Export]

12 minutes ago, Gordon Scammell said:

Why has this comment been given one of those pathetic red arrow things?  Own up you coward.  Nothing wrong with the comment.  It's absolutely spot on - so have a green to compensate!

doubt they will own up- but someone seems to be throwing out a scattering of reds

[Foreign Export]

I have enjoyed reading everyone's contributions in this thread, we are all of a similar mind re Alamy's behaviour and treatment of us as contributors.

I suspect Alamy had to make this change, their business model seems confused, I doubt they have a clear plan and strategy. Certainly judging by their mixed messages re exclusivity they don't.

They may well wither for a while until they sort out a proper plan.

One thing seems clear - the new terms are here to stay-sadly.

I will now opt out of further discussion on this thread.

 

[Nathaniel Noir]

Well this has been an exhausting week and it is now pretty clear that this is not a conversation nor a negotiation. We can ask as many questions as we want, but all we have gotten back in return is generic and vague doublespeak answers. My takeaway is that Alamy doesn't care.

 

We can chat about this to infinity, but at the end of the day actions speak louder than words and like others on here I will be taking my own actions, for starters with marking all my images as non-exclusive as soon as the new contract kicks in and refocusing my time from submitting new images here to other ventures, submitting to other sites and looking into selling directly.

 

I wanted to thank everyone for their suggestions and tips on where to look next, they have been very inspirational! Restricting usage on my images on here and getting two requests from Alamy to lift restrictions within a period of two days has really showed me that my images are valued by customers and I have confidence I can effectively sell them elsewhere.

 

The really great and positive outcome of this is that it pushes us to take our destiny into our own hands and look for better more efficient ways to make money with our skills and assets. I personally am very very excited about the rise of NFTs and how blockchain technology could in future benefit artists and creators to take control of their art and make repeat income on royalties as their work gets sold on by others. This is happening NOW and one day Alamy might just be another MySpace of the internet world. 

[Radim]

It's great that the Head of Content answered
Yet I still think that PA / Alamy is just about explaining their position, not about understanding and willingness to change anything. Their lawyers, who had a clear task (they are not our lawyers), have invested a lot of time in the new contract, they will not (for various reasons) want to change anything. I'm still skeptical that PA / Alamy doesn't have much respect for us small contributors, and that something will change by July 1st. My confidence is gradually disappearing and, unfortunately, Alamy is not taking any steps to stop this situation. So I don't see them yet

[ReeRay]

Who the hell is laying all these red arrows? Idiot

 

[Graham Morley]

Back in 1970, when I first starting submitting to picture libraries and the percentage to photographers was 60%, I felt valued by the Library I was with. Submitting to Libraries has only ever been a small part of my professional photographic activities, but rewards were excellent for many years.  The libraries I stayed with worked for each others mutual benefit.  This positive working relationship with libraries continued until 2015, when one I had been submitting to (run by a photographer and his wife) closed due to retirement.

 

I have always sort positive working relations with clients and suppliers, but if at any time I have had an uneasy ‘gut’ feeling about any business relationship, by being undervalued or taken advantage of, I have pulled the plug, and withdrawn from the business relationship.  I have always felt that if one door closes another will open, and it has.

 

I have felt uneasy about Alamy for some years, and a disillusionment in the market and the way Alamy has responded have led to me submitting few new pics to Alamy in recent years.  Retirement from pro photography also led to other more creative paths in photography, too.

 

But now the red line has been crossed – lowering the commission rate to below 50%!  That, together with ambiguous legal clauses indicate to me that the new contract is not acceptable to me.  Late at night I have been tempted to stay with Alamy with thoughts of 40% is better than nothing, and that some of the legal vunerabilty can be covered by Photographer’s Personal Indemnity cover, (which I had together with Photographer’s Personal Liability cover when a working pro), but in the cold light of day my ‘gut’ feeling is no – pull the plug!  So I have notified Alamy that I will not accept the new contract.

 

I can now move forward with restored self respect and sense of security.  Also, I can concentrate more on my personal photo projects.

 

I wish everyone well as they make decisions about the future.

 

Graham